Returning to Zig

84 points by liberty


hjvt

That's not to say that they have given up on safety. Zig is safer than unsafe Rust. So when you find yourself in a situation where you'd have to write unsafe Rust anyway, Zig may be a better option.

This is a pretty common sort of an opinion, and it never fails to baffle me. In this case especially, where author admits that "safety is a spectrum", but then turns around and recommends essentially trading localized pockets of unsafe, for a language where everything is constantly unsafe, even if the abstract machine is marginally easier to reason about.

hsivonen

Being shackled to LLVM it will be a long time, if ever, until it supports as many platforms as C.

What platforms do you want to develop for that LLVM does not support? How is Zig better on this point? Is this about Zig being able to generate tier-4 C code that then GCC compiles for hppa, alpha, and sh?